[QUOTE=firstdown;924020]That's what the left thinks.[/QUOTE]

Unchecked private enterprise took this country to shit during the turn of the 20th century and its well on its way again.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=hooskins;924068]Unchecked private enterprise took this country to shit during the turn of the 20th century and its well on its way again.[/quote]


...one thing that help back then and I know I'll get crap for this was Unions,funny how the decline of Unions has brought private enterprise back into the crapper.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924067]It's weird that people have this absolutist thinking when it comes to government. It's scary and, frankly, destructive.

We don't throw out capitalism when corporations fail or turn out to be corrupt and inefficient. The same should be true of government. No program or agency is without flaw or room for improvement.[/quote]

I'm not against goverment I just think we are heading down a road of everyone expecting goverment to solve their problems. It does not work and we see what its leading to across the Atlantic. You say its scary and destructive but I feel what your wanting the goverment to do for you and others is scary and destructive. Why does the left always come up with these plans to fix something they say is broken and force everyone into their programs. If they were so great why force people into them?

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

12th – I always enjoy reading your political posts. Out of all the liberals here i feel like your posts and arguments are normally always based in logic with forward fiscal thinking, and most pleasantly of all, without that traditional liberal condescending tone. Im not saying that this isnt also true with other liberal posters here but some come across as just walking out of a Zeitgeist premiere ready to inflict their views on others….

So with that said would you mind commenting on what you don’t like about Obamacare and the supreme court’s ruling.

Obviously you are in favor of the bill, and im guessing its primarily because of the supposed cost savings of having an entire nation with health insurance. But do you like the expanding nanny state, social justice or redistribution of wealth sides of it? Do you think its good or bad that congress can force us to buy anything by taxing us if we don’t? Do you think giving free health insurance to those who cant afford, an expansion of medicade, is a good idea? Is forcing others to pay for those who cant afford it good only if it means preventive costs are lower in the long run for those footing the bill?

I guess im trying to figure out if youre pro-Obamacare for cost reasons ahead of social reasons or vice versa. Or what simple things would make the bill better in your eyes?

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=mlmpetert;924093][B]12th – I always enjoy reading your political posts. Out of all the liberals here i feel like your posts and arguments are normally always based in logic with forward fiscal thinking, and most pleasantly of all, without that traditional liberal condescending tone. Im not saying that this isnt also true with other liberal posters here but some come across as just walking out of a Zeitgeist premiere ready to inflict their views on others….[/B]

So with that said would you mind commenting on what you don’t like about Obamacare and the supreme court’s ruling.

Obviously you are in favor of the bill, and im guessing its primarily because of the supposed cost savings of having an entire nation with health insurance. But do you like the expanding nanny state, social justice or redistribution of wealth sides of it? Do you think its good or bad that congress can force us to buy anything by taxing us if we don’t? Do you think giving free health insurance to those who cant afford, an expansion of medicade, is a good idea? Is forcing others to pay for those who cant afford it good only if it means preventive costs are lower in the long run for those footing the bill?

I guess im trying to figure out if youre pro-Obamacare for cost reasons ahead of social reasons or vice versa. Or what simple things would make the bill better in your eyes?[/quote]

12th I also agree with this 100%.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=HailGreen28;923861]Those links really don't support your own positions very much:

"Swamped by other factors". Not very comforting. Especially since we all know out premiums are indeed going up, for all the "concessions" made by the health care industry to cover more people.[/quote]


Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)

[url=http://raoulpop.com/2009/01/06/using-the-economy-as-an-excuse-to-shortchange-employees/]Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop[/url]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fashion/15benefit.html?pagewanted=all[/url]

It's a cop out.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

In a perfect world, we would have a small government that had minimum regulations and restrictions on its people and its economy.

The sad reality of it, is that you have to hold people's hand in order to get them to do the right thing. Don't believe me, take away all laws and see what happens. It always is a double edge sword, but sometimes it is a necessary one.


Remove regulations from banks and corporations. They'll end up collapsing the economy and providing workers with unsafe conditions and petty pay.

Remove EPA regulations and the environment will be destroyed by corporations and businesses trying to make a buck.

Now, I would rather our government not be involved, but it's been proven time and time and time and TIME again that businesses (and people) have to be regulated.

The thing that kills me with most conservatives is that what do they actually think is going to happen when you deregulate? They are allowed to run wild, and that's exactly what they'll do. Why? Because their primary focus is to make as much as money as possible, even if that means using unethical means to do it.


Do we really want to go back to these days? I know the rich elites do.

[IMG]http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/08/personalbest_timeline/image/jaygould.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=NC_Skins;924099]Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)

[URL="http://raoulpop.com/2009/01/06/using-the-economy-as-an-excuse-to-shortchange-employees/"]Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop[/URL]

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fashion/15benefit.html?pagewanted=all[/URL]

It's a cop out.[/quote]

I love your links. The first one had an unnamed first example. The 2nd used Adobe saying it laid off employees and was not loosing business but the link showed their stock had gone from $40 some dollars to $20 some (that raking in the profits). The second uses a nanny who was not doing her job as an example. LMAO

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

@mlmpetert,

This is a really good way to frame the discussion. Good questions. Some I've considered but mostly on the pro-side. Before I delve into my answer(s), I just want to correct one or two things you said and then take a step back to help understand "Obamacare" from a slightly different angle.

It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. I know you know that, but it makes a difference in terms of how we discuss and/or debate the law. Once we peel back the term "Obamacare" for a second and call it by it's proper name, The Patient's Bill of Rights/Affordable Care Act, that too makes a huge difference. Most people hear "Obamacare" and immediately certain images, right or wrong, pop into their heads. For the sake of our discussion, Obamacare is fine. Just wanted to point that out.

Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the [B]individual mandate[/B]. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.

And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.

The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. [B]My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment.[/B] I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=firstdown;924114]I love your links. The first one had an unnamed first example. The 2nd used Adobe saying it laid off employees and was not loosing business but the link showed their stock had gone from $40 some dollars to $20 some (that raking in the profits). The second uses a nanny who was not doing her job as an example. LMAO[/quote]


Yes. They showed where Adobe reported record revenues and still laid off people.

[quote]Adobe registered fourth-quarter revenue of $915.3 million, up $4.1 million from Q4 2007 and up $23.9 million from last quarter. Net revenue was $245.9 million, working out to 46 cents / share. Annual revenues were also record-breaking -- $3.580 billion, for 13% year-over-year growth. That's in line with the company's targets at the start of the year.[/quote]

It's not hard to figure this out. It's called PR. Why would a company take the negative PR hit on slashing jobs when they can just point at the economy and use that as an excuse? The point of the links was to show that instead of companies (small, big, etc) coming out and taking the negative PR hit, they just used the shitty economy as their excuse to lay off people(or fire nannies) even if the bad economy didn't affect them in any way. Politicians then piggy back off of the companies excuses to blame whoever is in office at the time for such job loss even though it had nothing to do with them.

Also, you do realize you can be highly productive and your stock still plummet right? You do realize that in 2008, the stock market and Wall Street took a huge dump? You remember, your good ole buddy GWB right? Those years!

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=NC_Skins;923803]Dear god. Fox news again? Sammy, for the love of god stop reading that crap.

As usual, they distort and exaggerate the truth. Let's start with that first point.

At this point, Fox News should be treated much like The Onion when it comes to stories.[/quote]As usual with you and 12th, you'll discount anything from Fox without reading/admiting the facts in their articles. I'm not going to comb through the actual Obamacare legislation to cite page/paragraph for the following points mentioned in the Fox link, but I'll cut out virtually all the commentary. Still leaves some pretty hefty tax increases that I noticed you couldn't/didn't address in your response:

- Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income. The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

- The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit.......The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year......so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years......

- Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

- [B]The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase - [/B]This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.

When you can't counter the facts, try to disparage the source....must be straight from Rules for Radicals. If you guys discount Fox, I guess those on the right can discount CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;924146]When you can't counter the facts, try to disparage the source....must be straight from Rules for Radicals. If you guys discount Fox, I guess those on the right can discount CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.[/quote]

I said they distorted and exaggerated, not that any of their information was incorrect. I used the first point as a example of them saying how the tax on prosthetic limbs was going to cost jobs/research in that area. It's hogwash, and it's simply not the case as noted from the articles I posted.


Isn't the WaPo more conservative leaning? Also, if you think all those media outlets are left leaning then you have no idea what unbiased or neutral is. I had this right winger (a friend at that) tell me that the BBC news was not only liberal, but also anti-american. :doh:

Just because they (media) point out Fox's slants and trashy news, doesn't mean they are liberal. It means they are setting the record straight.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;924146]

- Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income. The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

.[/quote]...we are allowed but how many hit it?Point is if it 7.5 or 10% I haven't hit it or would have hit it in the last 10 years,THIS WILL NOT EFFECT ME.I am a pre retirment senior,these numbers are thrown out but in reality ....noone knows.If I or the Mrs get sick (God forbid) then yes I might have a higher % to hit but the bill would be smaller and that is what all the anti Obama chicken littles are afraid of that Joe Public will find out.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924128]
Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the [B]individual mandate[/B]. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense. [/quote]

As it states, the law provides a tax credit to go toward the purchase of health insurance for those who qualify. Those who don't qualify (earns below a certain amount) will be covered by Medicaid's extended program. So while only 30 million would be covered under the tax credit, you how many more millions now will qualify for Medicaid? Obama has already came out, against his own party's will, and announced rising taxes for those making $250,000/per year and more, so we know that somebody has to cover the expensive of the extension of Medicaid.

[quote=12thMan;924128]And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.[/quote]

This kind of sounds like a statement of a card carrying Democrat, lol! So, if it succeeds, it's the Democrats, but if it fails, it was a Republican concept?


[quote=12thMan;924128]In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.[/quote]

Of course there's free health insurance. The Supreme Court past the decision that would allow this program to offer Medicaid extensions to cover those who "fall between the cracks" that otherwise before would not qualify for Medicaid. That money HAS to come from somewhere, where you do think the government is going to get that money? Again, President Obama has already came out this week and stated that he's pushing to have taxes raised for those making $250k+ a year instead of just millionaires now. So, even the President realizes that he's going to have to tax more in order to fund this program.

[quote=12thMan;924128]The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. [B]My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment.[/B] I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.[/quote]

We've been waiting for years for social security to improve, and alas, I won't have social security by the time I'm old enough to retire, so that's probably a bad example to compare this "law" to. As far as the Medicaid extension goes, in the end, it doesn't matter if the states have the right to opt out or not, they'll more than likely adopt the program, because it will probably wind up costing the states more in the long run not to.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=NC_Skins;923801][IMG]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/leedogg/548304_10150882631811862_430996128_n.jpg[/IMG][/quote]Hyperbole anyone? Here is a link from the Aussie gov't on problems they admit they are facing in their own system. Now imagine how those problems will increase exponentially in the U.S with a much larger population.

[URL="http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/nhhn-report-toc~nhhn-report-over~nhhn-report-over2"]yourHealth - 2. Problems with our health system today[/URL]

I'm a Christian and I've got no problem going to church on Sunday and opposing Obamacare. There are already plenty of gov't programs in place to help the very poor. Obamacare is about gov't control, not helping the less fortunate. This clown needs to stop drinking the socialist kool-aid.

Oh, and this,
Austrailian Income taxes:
under $ 18K = $ 0
18-37K = 19%
37-80K = 32.5%
80 - 180K = 37%
over 180K = 45%
plus 1.5% Medicare tax on all
also 10% VAT (sales tax) which goes to the states

US Tax Brackets - Single Filing
$0 – $8,700 = 10%
$8,700 – $35,350 = 15%
$35,350 – $85,650 = 25%
$85,650 – $178,650 = 28%
$178,650 – $388,350 = 33%
Over $388,350 = $ 35%
plus 1.45% Medicare tax on individual, 1.45% on employer.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=NC_Skins;924105]In a perfect world, we would have a small government that had minimum regulations and restrictions on its people and its economy.

The sad reality of it, is that you have to hold people's hand in order to get them to do the right thing. Don't believe me, take away all laws and see what happens. It always is a double edge sword, but sometimes it is a necessary one.


Remove regulations from banks and corporations. They'll end up collapsing the economy and providing workers with unsafe conditions and petty pay.

Remove EPA regulations and the environment will be destroyed by corporations and businesses trying to make a buck.

Now, I would rather our government not be involved, but it's been proven time and time and time and TIME again that businesses (and people) have to be regulated.

The thing that kills me with most conservatives is that what do they actually think is going to happen when you deregulate? They are allowed to run wild, and that's exactly what they'll do. Why? Because their primary focus is to make as much as money as possible, even if that means using unethical means to do it.


Do we really want to go back to these days? I know the rich elites do.
[/quote]

NC_SKINS:

I don't know of any true conservatives that are for taking away laws altogether. I do know of extremist libertarians who believe in some sort of utopia of sorts where the gov't is skin and bones and any rescue, fire, and police service is all privately ran. Most conservatives that I know realize there needs to be some regulation in terms of protection, but at the same time, too much regulation is detrimental, and I believe that we have way too much regulation in this country which is crippling job growth. for instance, in the state of VA, it is illegal to grow Hemp, but not illegal to sale or buy it. The gov't right now has it on the controlled substance list, but removing it from this list would allow farmers in VA to grow it and create about 10,000 jobs in southside VA. Hemp is used in just about everything nowadays. That's just a small case of regulation that does not need regulation.

As far as regulation of pay, I think that is one area where the government should stay out of the way and allow the free market to decide how much that job is worth. If Company A pays crap, and company B pays better, employees will go to company B. It should be just that simple, but instead, the gov't wants to step in and say company A should pay X amount no matter if they have to cut jobs and downsize to do it. What is worse, getting paid a crappy salary or having no jobs at all? Just ask Southside VA.

But anyways, assuming that conservatives feel there should be no regulation is just plain stupid to me, but there should be a lot of deregulation going on.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=NC_Skins;924147]Isn't the WaPo more conservative leaning? Also, if you think all those media outlets are left leaning then you have no idea what unbiased or neutral is. I had this right winger (a friend at that) tell me that the BBC news was not only liberal, but also anti-american. :doh:[/quote]WaPo is just as left as the NY Times. Wash Times is conservative leaning.

[quote]Just because they (media) point out Fox's slants and trashy news, doesn't mean they are liberal. It means they are setting the record straight.[/quote]Depends on perspective, you & 12th would consider Fox "slanted and trashy", me and those who are conservative would consider CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc. "slanted and trashy".

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=Giantone;924151]...we are allowed but how many hit it?Point is if it 7.5 or 10% I haven't hit it or would have hit it in the last 10 years,THIS WILL NOT EFFECT ME.I am a pre retirment senior,these numbers are thrown out but in reality ....noone knows.If I or the Mrs get sick (God forbid) then yes I might have a higher % to hit but the bill would be smaller and that is what all the anti Obama chicken littles are afraid of that Joe Public will find out.[/quote]Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;924155]
I'm a Christian and I've got no problem going to church on Sunday and opposing Obamacare. There are already plenty of gov't programs in place to help the very poor. Obamacare is about gov't control, not helping the less fortunate. This clown needs to stop drinking the socialist kool-aid.

.[/quote]


The last time I checked it was a religious sect that was serving cool aid to it's memebers and lying to them.My question to you ...what about the not very poor,what about the people who are doing the best they can to hang on but don't qualify as "very poor",Sammy what do they do?

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;924159]Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.[/quote]


Maybe but with lower primiums ...then it is offset.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

Skinsguy,

You seem to have your own interpretation of the rules, especially regarding the individual mandate. The mandate isn't specifically for low income people neither do ALL in the pool of 30 million qualify to receive a tax credit.

The Supreme Court's ruling said, the federal gov't under Obamacare [B]cannot [/B]dictate to states whether to accept Medicaid funding. Essentially, that's the only portion of the law that was more or less struck down.

Right now the federal government pays for about 57% of total Medicaid costs. That's even before we start debating whether "Obamacare" is a good or bad idea. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state. Some states have a vastly more complex healthcare delivery system than others. State run hospitals, university hospitals, and other network providers are absorbing the costs and looking toward the state for reimbursement. In other words, states defray costs and foot the bill for covering the uninsured. When times are lean, Medicaid is the typically the first program to see the axe and have eligibility requirements change. The new law, "Obamacare", says you can't change those eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Cut your budgets elsewhere. See where this is going? Now we can debate the merits of Medicaid, but to call it socialized medicine is not the case.

Lastly, I couldn't care less which party get's credit. The facts are the facts. A Democrat passed healthcare reform. Had it been Reagan, Bush, or Roy Rogers I'd acknowledge that.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

Oh, what does Obama's proposal to raise taxes, which he's not, have to do with Affordable Care Act? These are two distinctly different pieces of legislation.

I don't want to start a completely different argument in this thread, but...at some point taxes are going to have to go up. So there.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924128It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. [/quote]some of the "history" of how Obamacare became law:
[URL="http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/03/obamacares-hideous-history-rec"]The American Spectator : Obamacare's Hideous History, Recounted[/URL]

quote]And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.[/quote]Obamacare as it was written (and unread by many in Congress) is certainly no conservative "concept". You can point to Romneycare, however the law that passed in MA was with (8) over-ridded Romney vetos. For those that are interested in the differences in Romneycare vs. Obamacare here's a good link:

[URL="http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-cruc/"]The American Spectator : Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference[/URL]

The court killing the Commerce Clause argument was HUGE and absolutely necessary to curtailing an already out of control, over-regulatory, federal gov't. Here's Roberts' opinion, and while I'm no fan of Obamacare being upheld as a constitutional tax, I'l take that loss while the SCOTUS curtails the federal gov'ts expansion of power.

"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely [I]because[/I] they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to [I]regulate[/I] commerce, not to [I]compel[/I] it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;924159]Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. [B] Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.[/B][/quote]


There is no such thing as free lunch and ultimately everyone pays. The real question is when and how does the piper get paid? Is it through the back-door or through the front-door, or will it be through an unmarked envelope under the table?

Bottom line, there are two things certain in life, death and taxes...the bourgeoisie need to be weary of the mob less they want to end up under the guillotine sooner than desirable.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=Giantone;924161]The last time I checked it was a religious sect that was serving cool aid to it's memebers and lying to them.My question to you ...what about the not very poor,what about the people who are doing the best they can to hang on but don't qualify as "very poor",Sammy what do they do?[/quote]It's a very difficult situation. I understand, I've experienced it first hand with my parents. My mom continued to work, just to keep health insurance for my Dad, until Medicare kicked in. My sister and I did what we could at the time to help. Once Medicare kicked in the benefit levels dropped.

By no means do I think the health care system doesn't need reform, it certainly does, and now. But ultimately turing over control of mine and my family's health care to the gov't under a single-payer system, which is Obama's stated goal, is not something I want to see happen.

And all the numbers, taxes/not taxes, FSA, whatever aside, I'm Catholic and there is no way I'll support any legislation, or politician that advocates legislation, that forces a religious affiliated hospital or charity to provide services (sterilization, abortion drug, contraception) that are directly counter to its core beliefs with no avenue for an "opt-out" or religious exemption.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=saden1;924171]There is no such thing as free lunch and ultimately everyone pays. The real question is when and how does the piper get paid? Is it through the back-door or through the front-door, or will it be through an unmarked envelope under the table?

Bottom line, there are two things certain in life, death and taxes...the bourgeoisie need to be weary of the mob less they want to end up under the guillotine sooner than desirable.[/quote]Agree. You and I differ on when/how the piper is paid, and when/how/if the mob rules, but you are up front about what the ultimate point of Obamacare is no smoke-n-mirrors. Kudos.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924172]Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure Roberts said it was a tax hence his support. This whole finessing of the English language is truly absurd...any money collected by the government is by nature a tax.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924172]Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.[/quote]You're very "on message" here, good job. Point is the fed gov't should be encouraging/discouraging behavior a lot less.

I couldn't care less if it's a penalty/tax/fee, ultimately the fed is taking money from me...and yes I completely get that they have the constitutional right to do so. I don't agree so I certainly will be voting for and advocating for those in elected office who will do less encouraging/discouraging (taxing).

My main point was, the Commerce Clause argument is a victory for limiting the feds powers vs. the states.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924170]Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.[/quote]The final version of Romneycare was passed with eight over-ridded Romney vetos of specific sections of the law.

The plans are similar, yet also quite different in scope and goals, read the link I posted it gives a good summary.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

as far as that facebook post... historically, when christianity was starting out, they had a MUCH higher life expectancy than non christians (like 10+ years more) because they took care of their sick, which just wasn't the norm.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=NC_Skins;924099]Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.[/quote]You said Fox was distorting and exaggerating on the effect of the increased tax on small medical device companies. Your first link: "S[URL="http://www.plasticstoday.com/blogs/medical-musings-look-beyond-hyperbole-medical-device-tax07070201201"]mall companies that are often engines for important innovations need more protection from the tax.[/URL] "

Your second link doesn't defend the tax, it just says everybody is getting hit. This is not a good defense of anything. The medical device industry is not being singled out. [URL="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3684"]The excise tax is one of several new levies on sectors that will gain business due to health reform....

The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt......

The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care.....

The effect of the excise tax on consumers’ costs for health care and health insurance will be minimal and will be swamped by other factors.[/URL]

Nevermind taxing and restricting something isn't going to "gain" anything in that field. Both links seem like more of a defense of the Fox story than a rebuttal.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=HailGreen28;924191]Nevermind taxing and restricting something isn't going to "gain" anything in that field. Both links seem like more of a defense of the Fox story than a rebuttal.[/quote]

Then you choose to see what you want to see. It's clearly not supporting some of the exaggerations that Fox was making, and it definitely doesn't "seem like more of a defense of the Fox story."

[quote]The spin is that there will be tremendous job loss and reduction in R&D despite the significant increase in numbers of people covered by healthcare in the United States.

Yet an analysis by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities takes a very different view. The Center is a think tank founded in 1981 to analyze federal budget priorities. It describes itself as nonpartisan, but it has a focus on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals. That probably constitutes a bias in today's red-hot partisan environment.[/quote]


[quote]Tax Will Not Shift Employment Offshore

Despite claims to the contrary, the excise tax creates no incentive whatever for medical device manufacturers to move production overseas. The tax applies to imported as well as domestically produced devices. Thus, sales of medical devices in the United States will be equally subject to the tax whether they are produced here or abroad, and the tax will not make imported devices any more attractive to domestic purchasers.

In addition, devices produced in the United States for export are exempt from the tax, so it will not reduce the competitiveness of U.S.-made devices in international markets. Making a tax-free sale for export is straightforward, and the administrative burden of securing an exemption is small. The device manufacturer and the U.S. exporter will register with the IRS (foreign purchasers of articles for export need not register), and the U.S. exporter must simply provide its registration number to the manufacturer and certify that the devices will be exported.[9]

A much-cited 2011 study financed by AdvaMed, an industry trade association, alleges that the tax would cause 10 percent of device manufacturing to move offshore, leading to the loss of 43,000 U.S. jobs.[10] Analysis by Bloomberg Government, however, finds that the study “is not credible.” Its assumptions, Bloomberg concludes, “conflict with economic research, overstate companies’ incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand created by the [health reform] law.”[11] [/quote]

[quote]Tax Will Have Little Effect on Innovation

The excise tax also will likely have very little effect on innovation in the medical device industry, despite claims to the contrary. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified five pillars of medical technology innovation: financial incentives, human and physical resources, a favorable regulatory climate, demanding and price-insensitive patients, and a supportive investment community.[19] Each pillar comprises more than a dozen separate factors, and the tax rate is just one of the many factors affecting financial incentives.
The rate of innovation in medical technology has slowed in recent years for reasons entirely unrelated to the excise tax. “Like Big Pharma, which introduced many ‘me too’ drugs,” writes The Economist, “device companies have sustained themselves by making small improvements to existing products. Spending on R&D has so far failed to yield many truly innovative devices.”

Health reform may well spur medical-device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care. As PricewaterhouseCoopers observes:

Government pressure to lower healthcare costs could . . . forc[e] developed nations to turn to innovative technology to achieve better results at lower costs. In the United States, for example, the [ACA] calls for reduced annual payment updates for most Medicare services, substantial cuts to managed care plan payments, and the creation of an Independent Payment Advisory Board. These are small steps in what will be a prolonged and complex effort by Western nations to rein in healthcare costs.[20] [/quote]


Sure, the author from the first link does express some concern for small businesses.

[quote]All of that being said, there is room for improvement in how the medical device tax is assessed. Small companies that are often engines for important innovations need more protection from the tax. Any potential impact of the tax on R&D in the United States needs to be rethought and changed. Medical innovation is a powerful resource of the United States and a growing pillar of our economy.[/quote]

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=NC_Skins;924193]Then you choose to see what you want to see. It's clearly not supporting some of the exaggerations that Fox was making, and it definitely doesn't "seem like more of a defense of the Fox story."[/quote]Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/05/five-major-obamacare-taxes-that-will-hit-your-wallet-in-2013/#ixzz1zxhkmzlt"]fox link[/URL] doesn't talk about jobs going overseas, it talks about jobs lost, which your links don't refute.

[quote=NC_Skins;924193]Sure, the author from the first link does express some concern for small businesses.[/quote]Which agrees with the Fox article. What did they "distort" or "exaggerate" in this case?

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=HailGreen28;924198]Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/05/five-major-obamacare-taxes-that-will-hit-your-wallet-in-2013/#ixzz1zxhkmzlt"]fox link[/URL] doesn't talk about jobs going overseas, it talks about jobs lost, which your links don't refute.[/quote]


Oh my god, are you really going to argue semantics now? Jobs being shipped overseas is jobs lost in America. They'd have to lay off people in America just to give jobs to somebody overseas. It's job loss.

[quote=HailGreen28;924198]Which agrees with the Fox article. What did they "distort" or "exaggerate" in this case?[/quote]


No, it doesn't. Him sharing a concern isn't him agreeing with Fox.

[quote]The spin is that there will be tremendous job loss and reduction in R&D [U]despite the significant increase in numbers of people covered by healthcare in the United States[/U]. [/quote]

In other words, he's saying that this tax isn't going to matter really because the number of people covered by the new health insurance which will ultimately increase revenues!!!! Significant increase is the actual word he used.


Here is exactly what Fox said.

[quote]Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.
[/quote]

No. No way companies are laying off people or cutting R&D due to the looming tax. If anything, they are using this as an excuse like many companies like to do. Hrmm...how do I cut my work force, and push the extra work onto others without looking like the bad guy? Oh, I know, I'll just claim this new tax is going to kill my profits!!


Since you want to argue semantics, Fox's title is this [B]"Five major ObamaCare taxes that [U]will[/U] hit your wallet in 2013"[/B] is misleading and false as well. Notice the word WILL, and not the word COULD. Distorting? Yes. Misleading? Yes. False? Yes.

There are many medical devices that aren't being taxed. So this tax isn't going to affect everybody's wallet. Not everybody will need to buy a medical device that's being taxed. Hey, not according to Fox!!

Source2:
[quote]Spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have an almost imperceptible effect on health insurance premiums.[/quote]



Listen, we aren't going to agree on this, so you keep believing Fox and I'll chose not to. That we can agree on.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924166]Oh, what does Obama's proposal to raise taxes, which he's not, have to do with Affordable Care Act? These are two distinctly different pieces of legislation.

I don't want to start a completely different argument in this thread, but...at some point taxes are going to have to go up. So there.[/quote]

You were arguing in your last post against the idea of the Affordable Care Act being another case of redistribution of wealth, and then you say in this post that taxes will have to go up. Which means that all tax payers are having to shoulder the cost of this program. So, me, being a taxpayer who has health insurance will not only continue to struggle to meet my own medical expenses even after insurance has paid its part, but will now have to also shoulder the cost of this for others who are getting gov't sponsored health insurance at a subsidized rate.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924164]Skinsguy,

You seem to have your own interpretation of the rules, especially regarding the individual mandate. The mandate isn't specifically for low income people neither do ALL in the pool of 30 million qualify to receive a tax credit. [/quote]

It's what I said earlier. Not all will qualify to receive the tax credit. Those who don't will be covered under Medicaid, and those who refuse will have to pay a penality.

[quote=12thMan;924164]The Supreme Court's ruling said, the federal gov't under Obamacare [B]cannot [/B]dictate to states whether to accept Medicaid funding. Essentially, that's the only portion of the law that was more or less struck down.[/quote]

Right. And I'm saying states will probably wind up going along with the medicaid extension program anyway, because the federal government is footing the bill for the next several years.

[quote=12thMan;924164]Right now the federal government pays for about 57% of total Medicaid costs. That's even before we start debating whether "Obamacare" is a good or bad idea. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state. Some states have a vastly more complex healthcare delivery system than others. State run hospitals, university hospitals, and other network providers are absorbing the costs and looking toward the state for reimbursement. In other words, states defray costs and foot the bill for covering the uninsured. When times are lean, Medicaid is the typically the first program to see the axe and have eligibility requirements change. [B]The new law, "Obamacare", says you can't change those eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Cut your budgets elsewhere. See where this is going? [/B]Now we can debate the merits of Medicaid, but to call it socialized medicine is not the case.[/quote]

Yes, it's more government. More relaxed Medicaid requirements equals more getting on medicaid, which equals higher taxes to cover the costs, which means states having to eventually cut their budgets in other areas of need, which means more job loss.


[quote=12thMan;924164]Lastly, I couldn't care less which party get's credit. The facts are the facts. A Democrat passed healthcare reform. Had it been Reagan, Bush, or Roy Rogers I'd acknowledge that.[/quote]

I'll hold you to that then.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=12thMan;924170]Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.[/quote]

First off Romney is not a conservative.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate
 

[quote=firstdown;924246]First off Romney is not a conservative.[/quote]

Conservatism is a myth. The sooner you realize that the better.